Article 324 of the Constitution provides that the superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of electoral rolls, and the conduct of all elections to Parliament and to the legislature of every state shall be vested in the Election Commission of India (ECI). The 73rd and the 74th amendments to the Constitution in 1993 incorporated certain specific provisions relating to the panchayats and the municipalities respectively. Articles 243K and 243ZA provide that the superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of electoral rolls for, and the conduct of, all elections to panchayats/municipalities shall be vested in a State Election Commission (SEC).

It is clear that the wordings of Article 324 and those of Articles 243K and 243ZA are identical in terms of the powers of the ECI and the SEC as regards conduct of elections, including the preparation of electoral rolls; the only difference is in their domain. It is also clear that the voter is the same though the ECI or the SEC may call him to cast his vote at different times. Prima facie, therefore, it should stand to reason that there should be a common electoral roll for elections whether they be to the Lok Sabha, the legislative assembly, or a panchayati raj institution (PRI)/municipality.

While the Constitution lays down the framework as regards conduct of elections, the details are provided in the Representation of People’s Act, 1950 and the Act of 1951 in respect of elections to Parliament and state legislatures and in various state legislations in respect to elections to PRIs and municipalities, as also rules and regulations framed there under. From time to time the ECI or the SEC also issue instructions in regard to the conduct of elections, including the preparation of electoral rolls.

The Registration of Electoral Rules, 1960 prescribe the procedure for preparation or revision of electoral rolls. The electoral rolls are prepared by the ECI for assembly constituencies which are aggregated for Lok Sabha constituencies. The electoral rolls are prepared part wise. Each part is further divided into sections. Within a section, the names of electors are arranged according to house numbers. Ordinarily, there is an intensive revision of electoral rolls every five years when thousands of enumerators make visits from house to house and note down details of eligible members of the house. On the basis of such enumeration, draft rolls are prepared and published, inviting claims and objections. After disposal of claims and objections and preparing a supplementary list, the electoral rolls are finally published.

More recently, since 2003, a process has been initiated whereby verification of electoral rolls is done in ward sabhas. The last intensive revision (special nature) – 2002 commenced in August 2001 with reference to 1 January 2002 as qualifying date. The next intensive revision was, therefore, due in 2007 but not done possibly because the delimitation exercise was then under way. Now that the delimitation exercise, keeping in mind the Census of 2001, has been completed in all but five states (Jharkhand, Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Nagaland and Manipur) the ECI will be undertaking an extensive exercise for preparing the electoral rolls afresh in the new assembly constituencies. This effort provides an opportunity for taking concrete steps towards a common electoral roll.

On a yearly basis, the ECI also does a summary revision of electoral rolls to delete names of persons who have died, have left and moved to another place of residence, add names of persons who have come in to reside in the area and to include names of those persons who have attained the age of 18 years as on 1 January.

 

It will be seen from the brief details given above that the procedure for preparing electoral rolls for assembly constituencies is a very time consuming one spread over a couple of months. It involves a large number of government personnel who are withdrawn from their normal duties, to the detriment of such duties, to take up this task. This process obviously involves a large expenditure. It is also of a recurring nature since a summary revision is done every year. Therefore, prima facie, any duplication of this effort for elections to other bodies, where the voter is the same, is a wasteful exercise in terms of time and money and also causes confusion in the mind of the voter.

 

Each state has framed a law with regard to panchayati raj institutions (PRIs) and another law for municipalities. Some states have more than two laws. Each such law contains provisions relating to the conduct of elections, inter-alia, including provisions relating to the preparation of electoral rolls. Not all SECs use 1 January of each calendar year as the qualifying date for eligibility of new voters which is the case with electoral rolls prepared by the ECI. Again, while some state laws provide for preparation of electoral rolls using the electoral rolls prepared by the ECI, in other states the SECs prepare their electoral rolls de novo.

Thus, in terms of the procedure for preparing electoral rolls for elections to PRIs and municipalities, no uniform procedure or pattern is available across the country. This is not a satisfactory situation in terms of the time and money spent and the confusion which prevails on account of separate electoral rolls, one for assembly constituencies and the Lok Sabha and another for the PRIs and municipalities.

Criticism of the electoral rolls is often made on account of wrong inclusion of names, non deletion of names of dead persons, non inclusion of names, names of voters in more than one constituency, and names of voters in the electoral roll for either two municipalities or two PRIs or in both a municipal body and a PRI. Since elections to PRIs and municipalities in a state are held at different points of time, such a voter gets to cast his vote in two municipalities or at both the municipal body and the PRI elections. Cases are also known where a person by virtue of being a voter in a municipal body contests the elections there, loses, then gets his/her name included in the electoral roll of the PRI, contests and wins the election, all within a period of a few months. It is obviously necessary to curb such activity. A common electoral roll will considerably reduce such malpractices.

 

The delimitation exercise for the Lok Sabha and legislative assembly constituencies has recently been completed across most states of the country. This has been done after a period of 30 years, though Articles 82 and 170 of the Constitution provide that upon the completion of each census such readjustment of seats should be done. Clause (2) of Article 170 lays down the basis of such delimitation stating that each state shall be divided into territorial constituencies in such manner that the ratio between the population of each constituency and the number of seats allotted to that state shall, so far as practicable, be the same throughout the state. The rationale is clearly that there should be an even spread of population for assembly constituencies and for the Lok Sabha constituencies in a state.

The Delimitation Act, 2002 provides further details of how this exercise is to be done. The constituencies should, as far as practicable, be geographically compact areas and in delimiting them attention paid to physical features, existing boundaries of administrative units, facilities of communication and public convenience. Every assembly constituency has to fall wholly within one parliamentary constituency. The distribution of seats which are reserved for Scheduled Castes is, as far as practicable, to be done in those areas where the proportion of their population to the total is comparatively large. As regards Scheduled Tribes, constituencies reserved for them are, as far as practicable, to be located in areas where the proportion of their population to the total population is the largest. All these factors have been fairly rigorously followed in the recently completed exercise on delimitation. An average population for each assembly constituency in a district was worked out and then the variations were sought to be kept within a band of plus or minus 10 per cent of the average.

 

The recent delimitation exercise was one which was closely followed by political parties, by individual politicians and by the public. Occasionally, there were issues which were contentious, but the process prescribed for delimitation helped to resolve such issues to the satisfaction of most persons. The Delimitation Commission itself had ten associate members in each state, five being members of the House of the People and five members of the legislative assembly. After a first draft was prepared by the commission, it was discussed in detail with the associate members, suitably revised and then a draft published inviting comments/objections. Such comments/objections were extensively discussed by the commission and its associate members with representatives of political parties and the public at public hearings in each state. Thereafter, the matter was again discussed by the commission with the associate members and only then was the final notification for delimitation of assembly and Lok Sabha seats issued for each state.

As regards PRIs and municipal bodies, each state law has provisions for determination of seats after each census. However, while at the National level there is one Delimitation Commission, at the state level for PRIs and municipal bodies the powers of delimitation are sometimes with the state government and its functionaries and occasionally with the SECs. Here also the determination of seats is broadly on the basis of the population of the area of the PRI or the municipal body concerned.

The process of delimitation at whatever level it is done, since it redetermines the boundaries of constituencies, necessitates a revision of electoral rolls. That is why it is being argued here that the completion of the current delimitation exercise for the Lok Sabha and legislative assembly constituencies provides a good opportunity for moving towards a common electoral roll as the revision of electoral rolls is done.

 

The ECI held three meetings with the State Election Commissioners on 27 August 1997, 11 January 1999 and 18 April 2000. One of the matters discussed in these meetings was the issue of having a common electoral roll for parliamentary and assembly elections, and for local body elections. A consensus emerged for sharing the database of electoral rolls created for assembly constituencies for generating electoral rolls for the local bodies.

On 22 November 1999 the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) addressed a letter to the Prime Minister on this matter of preparing common electoral rolls for elections conducted by the ECI and SECs. It was stated therein that there would be a huge national saving were a common electoral roll used for all elections, and the assembly rolls also used for local body elections by being adopted and rearranged by the ‘cut and paste’ method according to wards or polling areas of the local bodies. The letter clarified that this would not pose a problem to the electoral machinery in the field, as it would be the same at the ground level. The move may necessitate some minor amendments to the local laws of the states concerned, but would result in substantial economy in government expenditure on elections. This matter was reiterated in a letter of the CEC to the Prime Minister dated 5 July 2004, as a pending proposal.

 

On 24 July 2000 the CEC addressed letters to all chief ministers referring to the three conferences held by the ECI with State Election Commissioners. This letter underlined the consensus with regard to a common electoral roll to be shared by the ECI and the SECs. It would result in a saving of massive financial and human resources required for undertaking the preparation of electoral rolls and their revision. It would not only remove inconsistencies between the two sets of electoral rolls, but the prevailing confusion from the minds of citizens and voters. The letter also mentioned that the proposal had been endorsed by all political parties in the ECI’s consultations.

The National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution under the Chairmanship of Justice M.N. Venkatachaliah had in its report submitted in March 2002 also recommended that the Constitution should specifically stipulate a common electoral roll both for local elections to panchayats and municipalities, and to the Parliament and state legislative assemblies.

The commission at para 4.8.3 of its report recommends that ‘a foolproof method of preparing the electoral roll right at the panchayat level constituency of a voter and supplementing it by a foolproof voter ID card which may in fact also serve as a multi-purpose citizenship card for all adults. A single exercise should be enough for preparing common electoral rolls and ID cards.’

‘The task could be entrusted to a qualified professional agency under the supervision of the ECI and in coordination with the SECs. The rolls should be constantly updated and periodically posted on the web site of the Election Commission and CD-ROMs should be available to all political parties or anyone interested. Prior to elections, these rolls should be printed and publicly displayed at the post offices in each constituency, as well as at the panchayats or relevant constituency HQs. These should be open for inspection on payment of a nominal fee by anyone. Facilities should also be provided to the members of the public at the post offices for submitting their application for modification of the electoral rolls.’

 

The State Election Commissioners have since 2003 begun an informal process of holding an annual conference of all SECs. The first such conference was held on 25 June 2003 at Bangalore where it was felt that the electoral rolls of the ECI and SEC should be complementary to each other. It was resolved to recommend to the ECI that the future rolls prepared by them should incorporate the ward numbers and street numbers so as to be more useful in the preparation of rolls of local bodies. Further, while conducting local body elections, the constituency rolls, based on the assembly rolls, should be published, objections invited and finalized after necessary additions and deletions. Subsequently, in all such conferences of the State Election Commissioners this decision was reiterated and conveyed to the ECI.

Since 2005, the ECI has been holding an annual conference with the State Election Commissioners to discuss matters of mutual interest in an effort to resolve issues. In the first such conference held in April 2005, it was resolved that the database for electoral rolls for assembly constituencies prepared by the ECI should contain details of the ward number for each voter in the case of municipal bodies and the name of the panchayat and ward number in the case of rural voters. This database could then be shared by the ECI with the SECs so that the latter can rapidly prepare their electoral rolls. This decision has been reiterated in the subsequent conferences between the ECI and State Election Commissioners in 2006 and 2007.

 

Appropriate instructions have been issued by the ECI to the Chief Electoral Officers (CEOs) in the states, after these meetings. In a way, this is the first step towards fulfilling the ultimate objective of having a common electoral roll. However, while the ECI has issued suitable instructions to the Chief Electoral Officers in the states, this decision has still to be given effect to at the ground level, despite being a relatively easy task. This is so because in the case of electoral rolls prepared by the ECI for the municipal areas, the database generally contains the ward number against the name of each voter. It is in the case of rural voters that the name of the panchayat and ward number of that panchayat is required against the name of the voter.

Once this is ensured by the ECI and the database is made available to the SECs, they can then use the ECI electoral rolls by splitting them up ward-wise, publish them in a draft form and finalize them after disposing off claims and objections. This will obviate the need of staff going into the field and doing a duplication of enumeration work for the SECs, thus resulting in the saving of cost, time and manpower. This will also preserve the sanctity of the basic electoral roll.

 

A National Consultation on Elections to Local Governments was organized on 12-13 October 2004 by the Society for Participatory Research in Asia (PRIA), with support from the Ministry of Panchayati Raj, Government of India. The participants included representatives from government, NGOs and some State Election Commissioners. At this consultation too, the need to avoid wastage and duplication in the preparation of electoral rolls separately by the ECI and SECs, and to provide for complementarities given the different institutional requirements was expressed. The consultation suggested a uniform procedure by all states in respect of preparation of electoral rolls on the basis of the exercise undertaken by the ECI, the ECI being consulted so that the electoral rolls provide for ward, street and house numbers for easy adaptation to local body elections and the ECI electoral rolls to be computerized in order to generate ward wise electoral rolls by SECs.

At the Sixth Round Table of Ministers in charge of Panchayati Raj, which was organized by the Ministry of Panchayati Raj, Government of India at Guwahati on 27-28 November 2004, one of the ten recommendations was in relation to evolving a common electoral roll for all levels of elections. Towards this end it was suggested that consultations between the CEC and the State Election Commissioners might be encouraged with a view to resolving practical problems that might arise in the preparation, maintenance and updating of such electoral rolls for elections to be held at different times for different levels. The Round Table felt that the panchayat and the nagarpalika wards should be regarded as the building blocks for electoral rolls for all levels of elections. This recommendation of the Round Table of Ministers clearly establishes the consensus at the political level for such reform which is urgently needed.

 

The Round Table also recommended that the Union government might consider the preparation of a model code relating to supervision, direction and conduct of elections to PRIs. Pursuant thereto, the Standing Committee of State Election Commissioners met the Union Minister of Panchayati Raj and the Union Minister of Urban Development in early 2006 and thereafter prepared two model bills, one for elections to PRIs and the other for elections to municipal bodies.

These two model bills were sent to the respective central ministries in August 2006. Each of these bills has provisions regarding the preparation of electoral rolls which, inter-alia, state that the State Election Commission may, if it so desires, use the electoral roll of an assembly constituency as prepared by the ECI as a basis for preparing the electoral roll for its constituencies. The model bill regarding elections to panchayats, after examination by the Ministry of Panchayati Raj and the Ministry of Law has been sent by the Minister of Panchayati Raj, Government of India to the Chief Ministers of the states on 17 May 2007 for consideration and enacting appropriate legislation.

Recently, the Second Administrative Reforms Commission has also looked at this issue of common electoral rolls. In its report the commission states that the eligibility criteria for voting rights are identical for the Lok Sabha, state assemblies and local governments and these three institutions should be seen as a seamless continuum. In such a situation, the commission has felt that the preparation of a separate electoral roll for local governments is redundant and can only lead to confusion. The commission has, therefore, held the view that local government laws should provide for adoption of the assembly electoral rolls for local governments without any revision of names by the SECs. For such a process to be effective, it was also necessary to ensure that voter registration and preparation of electoral rolls by the ECI is based on geographic contiguity. Similarly, the commission has felt that the electoral divisions for elections to local bodies should follow the building block approach.

Most recently, the Institute of Rural Management, Anand (IRMA) has brought out an Independent Assessment of the State of Panchayats 2007-08. The report released by the Prime Minister on 24 April 2008, makes a clear recommendation that there must be a common electoral roll for elections conducted by the ECI and the SECs.

 

The above details clearly indicate that two electoral rolls exist, one for elections to the Lok Sabha and assembly constituencies prepared by the Election Commission of India, and another for elections to the Panchayati Raj Institutions and municipal bodies. The voter for each of these elections is, however, the same. Large sums of money are periodically spent by the ECI and the SECs in preparing these electoral rolls, manpower is withdrawn from government departments for long periods to do this work at the cost of their original work, resulting in both duplication and wasteful expenditure. The voter is also confused with two electoral rolls and at times there are cases where the voter’s name is on one electoral roll but not on the other.

Two electoral rolls also provide opportunities for unscrupulous elements to misuse these efforts by having their names either in two municipal bodies or in a municipal body and in a PRI and then in contesting and/or voting at both elections.

 

Over the last decade, there have been many discussions between the two constitutional bodies – the Election Commission of India and the State Election Commissions – between them and the political parties, among ministers, among non-governmental organizations, and recommendations by various commissions in regard to the issue of a common electoral roll. There seems to be no difference of opinion and the unanimous view is that there should be a common electoral roll for elections to the Lok Sabha, legislative assemblies and local bodies. Besides being a logical requirement since the voter is the same, the common electoral roll will result in considerable savings and avoid disruption of normal work since government staff has to be withdrawn from their normal duties. A common electoral roll will also curb some of the electoral malpractices.

However, in these last ten years we have not been able to translate this need into action at the field level. The completion of the delimitation exercise now necessitates the revision of electoral rolls before the elections to the Lok Sabha due next year. It is, therefore, an appropriate time to ensure that a common electoral roll becomes a reality by translating their decisions into action.